Cameron has fallen into the poverty trap

David Cameron was probably wise to decide that Iraq was a less dangerous place than this week's CBI annual conference.

There was the hazard of a tepid reception and the near certainty of being outclassed by Tony Blair.

And after all, what would he have talked about? How much he admires Polly Toynbee, or how little he wants to cut taxes, or his new obsession with "relative" poverty, windmills for all, or what?

Instead, the CBI listened with a palpable lack of enthusiasm to the Tory stand-in, Shadow Chancellor George Osborne (who like his boss has never really had a proper job). He uttered vague pleas about the environment, social responsibility and flexible working hours.

But he does understand business, he claimed defensively, because the family firm is Osborne and Little, the chic interiors firm.

Those seeking to know what the Tory leadership means by social responsibility and flexible working should look at its "Quality of Life" working group. It is seriously considering the merits of introducing a 35-hour working week and invites views. (I am not making this up.)

An ingenuous defence from Tory HQ for Cameron's absence was that, you see, he was showing he was not in the pocket of Big Business. Given the Party's stretched finances, its treasurers may tremble.

We must marvel at the very existence of the Quality of Life working group. Is there any commodity left which politicians do not want to get their hands on?

You can guess how it would turn out with a Conservative government. There would be a Quality of Life Minister who would start by sending out targets to businesses and public bodies about employee "satisfaction", leisure time and fringe benefits (just fill in this 75-page survey, please).

Later would come guidance and finally legislation.

I am not joking - though you might, admittedly, regard the suggestion of the Tories actually coming to power as a frivolity.

It is the decision-to embrace so warmly the concept of relative poverty which is most mischievous.

In a world rich in futile and misleading statistics, few are more misused or misleading than this. The concept is philosophically, intellectually and statistically flawed.

I do not know who launched the measurement of relative poverty, but he was either very clever or very silly (sometimes the same thing, unfortunately). It has established an industry whose prospects are literally eternal. It gives new meaning to the old saying that the poor are always with us.

The Government's line is that "households" on 60 per cent of the median income level are in "relative poverty". That works out at just under £11,000, given a median of £18,000 a year - in both cases, note, after tax.

Below that level all sorts of complex benefits can kick in. Indeed, recent figures show that even the well-off may be feeding on Chancellor Gordon Brown's cat's cradle of welfare payments.

But questions arise about setting this universal figure. Who gets it, where and at what age?

The Government defines a household for no obvious reason as containing two adults.

However, if they are unemployed, on long-term sickness benefit, students, recent school leavers or fresh arrivals from Lithuania, you would not expect them to have other than low incomes, would you?

There would be little incentive to the unemployed or drawers of the long-term sickness benefit to go back to work otherwise.

You could well have someone below the supposed poverty line in Lancashire enjoying a significantly higher standard of living than someone in London well clear of the line but harassed by the costs of accommodation and commuting.

You can have a household enjoying all the appurtenances of modern life - central heating, dishwashers, computers, colour TV sets, exotic mobile phones and foreign holidays - and enjoying a living standard beyond their dreams a generation or two ago, but nevertheless classified as in poverty.

Genuine poverty and relative poverty have nothing to do with each other. If a burst of prosperity doubled the income of everyone, the number in relative poverty would remain unchanged.

And Cameron, Osborne and of course St Polly would still be complaining.

To reduce the number below the poverty line, you can either reduce the incomes of those above the line or increase the incomes of those below. The former would need higher taxation.

The latter would mean yet another lurch into the incredibly complex benefits system. With the government now spending more on welfare than on education and almost as much as on the NHS, the cost to the Exchequer could be murderous.

And as we already know, it would leave the unemployed and longterm sick with an ever-decreasing incentive to return to work.

Chancellor Gordon Brown seems incapable of getting the point. In next week's pre-Budget report he will still be banging on about his "relative poverty" targets.

Why the Tory Party should want to follow him down that obstacle-laden path remains a mystery.